2018-11-15_REVISION - C1980007 (7)

Home Browse Search

simply meant that it minimally addressed the requirements of the Act and Rules. The decision to deem the Application complete began the Division's adequacy review, which is more technical in nature and involved several rounds of requests from the Divisions and responses from Applicant. The Division determined that none of the changes to the Application made during the adequacy review process were significant enough to trigger a new public comment period or change Permit Revision 15's fundamental nature. 25. The three comment periods provided during the Division's review amounted to eighty days of comment period. During those periods, the Division received comments and met with the Objectors. In response to Objector's requests for materials and engagement, the Division posted all Application materials in a Google Drive folder, which was accessible by Objectors. 26. The Division presented testimony regarding Objectors' request to access private property during the site visit. In their comments, the Objectors had raised the issue of requiring Applicant to build access roads over private rather than public land. The Division, however, testified that it did not have the authority to dictate where access roads would be placed pursuant to the Application and further testified that, under the Rules and Act, it viewed impacts to public and private land in the same light. 27. Objectors presented testimony at the October 24, 2018 Board meeting. In particular, Objectors argued that by denying them the ability to observe sections of the proposed permitted area that was on private property, they were unable to adequately prepare for the informal conference. According to the Objectors, the denial of their request to visit private property deprived them of the ability to gather information regarding their concerns about impacts to fish and wildlife as a result of the proposed road building on public land, as well as an ability to understand the topography in the region and determine where proposed roads should be located on the private property. 28. Objectors presented testimony that during the site visit, the Applicant denied them access to the private land they wanted to see and that the Division made a determination that the Objectors did not need to see the portions of private land they had wanted to observe. 29. Applicant also presented testimony at the Board meeting. In particular, Applicant stated that it was possible to realign its proposed access roads to put more of the roads on private rather than public property, as Objectors advocated. Applicant provided testimony, however, that the Objectors' proposal was inefficient and undesirable because it would, among other things, increase surface disturbances by abandoning a long-standing road on public property. Likewise, Mountain Coal Company, LLC. West Elk Mine / C-198-007 4